This blog is about debating political issues, with specific reference to human rights

Finally the Tender to Run Pakistan…Thank God

Tender Notice for Running the Country
The Government of Pakistan requires the service of an International Organization to run the country for a period of twenty-five years.

Country Background:
It is generally believed that Pakistan was created for the Muslims of India. However, there is still debate in the country regarding the ideology of Pakistan. Some say that Pakistan came into being so unexpectedly that no one had the time to define its ideology. The state of Pakistan can be categorized as one of the following (or any combination thereof):

Islamic

Secular

Democratic

Autocratic

Militaristic

Autistic

Since the creation of Pakistan, following governments have been in place:

1947 – 1948 Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan was the first head of the state. Unfortunately, he passed away in 1948.

1948 – 1958 During this period 10 governments came and went. During this time a prime minister was assassinated and another exiled.

1958 – 1968 First Military coup and Martial law. The new Chief Martial Law Administrator and later President and Field Marshal, Mohammed Ayub Khan, ruled for ten years. People got sick and tired of dictatorship and went out in the streets calling the gentleman-soldier a dog. This broke his heart and he resigned. He was a decent sort of a chap who enriched only his own family and in return built many dams and a new city. He also authored a book titled “Friends and Masters”. Following the poor performance of the subsequent governments, he is today remembered as a Saint.

1971 The job of running the country became easier as the enslaved half of the country was freed through the goodwill and humanitarianism of the Pakistan military. The freed slaves made their own country called Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh proved to be very ungrateful and now refuse to play cricket with Pakistan.

1972 – 1977 A young Oxford educated feudal Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto became the Chief Martial Law Administrator and then the Prime Minister. His main strength was his fiery speeches in good English and bad Urdu. He was such a good Muslim that he accepted all the key demands of the clerics like declaring the Ahmedis non-Muslims and banning alcohol. Being a man of conscience he started drinking heavily to lessen the pain of taking such horrid decisions. He also wisely purged all the left wing troublemakers in his party and replaced them with solid, reliable and wise men from the feudal class.

1977 – 1987 Mr. Bhutto’s top general Zia-ul-Haq did not see eye to eye with Mr. Bhutto. One part of the reason was that he was squint eyed and the second that he did not think that Mr. Bhutto was Islamic enough. So he did “Istikhara” (requesting guidance from God) and after receiving permission deposed the Prime Minister in a coup.

He announced that elections would take place in 90 days. However, the people were so pleased with the General that they beseeched him to stay. Being a true democrat the General could not turn down the request of the masses and decided to stay on to serve them. Just to make sure that he could serve the people with his full attention he declared that the pesky Mr. Bhutto had hanged himself in a fierce police encounter. Being a hospitable man, he invited all the Muslim Afghan brethren to live in Pakistan. He also helped them fight the infidels from Russia. He had a rich uncle named Sam who provided the required finances.

This pious man would be still in power if it were not for his love of mangoes. He filled up his plane with so many crates of mangoes that it crashed due to the excessive weight. Many in Pakistan were deeply saddened by the loss of such good mangoes.

1988 – 2013 The period from 1947 to 1988 was a game of musical chairs and no one remembers who came and who went and where and why. It is not clear who is running the affairs of Pakistan; in an opinion poll majority felt that it was God.

Scope of Work of the Bidder:

The bidder will be solely responsible for running the Government of Pakistan. This will include (but not limited to):

1. Disbanding the band of thieves that has been running the country for the past 65 years and deporting them to their home countries like the USA, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Great Britain, and Canada.

2. Ensuring that containers are used for the sole purpose of transporting goods.

3. Banning spitting of phlegm, tobacco, niswar, and paan peek in public places and particularly on stairwells.

4. Removing all garbage strewn around the country and dumping it outside.

5. Arresting all the religious extremists and putting them in a rehabilitation centre run by Doctor Maulana Tahirul Qadri.

6. Removing all the political talk show anchors and using them as anchors for the boats in the oily waters of Kemari.

7. Changing the foreign policy from misaligned to non-aligned.

8. Eliminating the police force by making it mandatory for them to have a 32 inch waist.

9. Making Hijab mandatory for men and optional for women.

Bidder Qualification:

• Bidders from countries deemed to be more corrupt than Pakistan in the Transparency International Rankings will be subject to immediate disqualification.

• Bidders from previous colonizing countries like Great Britain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and France will be given preference.

• Bidders from the USA are not eligible to bid as they are already running the Government of Pakistan.

• Bidders from Nigeria need not apply.

• The language of the bids can be any as long as it is English.

• Influencing the bid evaluation process by means of bribery is strictly prohibited unless it is at least $50 million and made through proper channels.

Submission of Tender:

• Tenders will be submitted in quadruplicate in hard copy by courier.

• As per normal procurement rules 10 per cent of the bid price will be deposited as “goodwill”

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by alaiwah

ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY
About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with.
In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence.
The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none.
I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher
Avicenna.
Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively.
I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good.
The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from.
These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate.
Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions.
We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are.
Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist.
And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.
View all posts by alaiwah